Brief Facts
- The Petitioner was convicted for offence of murder and had been punished with imprisonment for life. The Petitioner submitted an application to the Remission Board for seeking remission of sentence as he had already undergone the imprisonment of over 20 years. However, the Remission Committee rejected the application of the Petitioner by citing the adverse report of the Presiding Officer of the Convicting Court, though the positive report was given by the Probation Officer and Jail administration. Subsequently, in the second round the Presiding Officer and SP gave the adverse report and the Application of the Petitioner was again rejected.
Issues
- Role and importance of the report of the Presiding Officer of the Convicting Court while considering the application of remission of the Prisoner under section 432 of the CrPC.
- Whether the report of the Presiding Officer is binding on the Remission Committee?
Held
- The Apex Court allowed the Petition by directing the Remission Committee to reconsider the Application of the Petitioner in light of the report of the other authorities and also after considering the other factors such as the good conduct of the Petitioner, age, health condition, family circumstances etc. The Presiding Officer of Convicting Court was also directed to provide a fresh opinion after considering the judicial record and taking into consideration the factors laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Laxman Naskar, (2000) 2 SCC 595.
- The record clearly indicates that the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application, is the adverse report submitted by the presiding judge in the first round, which was perfunctorily relied upon and reiterated in the report submitted by the then presiding judge in the second round as well. Both the reports submitted by the presiding judges (at the relevant time), demonstrate a casual opinion, based solely on the judicial record which presumably consisted of the finding of guilt, by the trial court and High Court. This offers only a dated insight on the petitioner, one that has limited opportunity to consider the progress the convict has made in the course of serving his sentence. Yet, the Remission Board has privileged the presiding judge’s opinion over the other authorities – like the Probation Officer, and Jail authorities, who are in a far better position to comment on his post-conviction reformation – offering a cautionary tale.
- In this court’s considered view, overemphasis on the presiding judge’s opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities, while arriving at its conclusion, would render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission application, unsustainable. The discretion that the executive is empowered with in executing a sentence, would be denuded of its content, if the presiding judge’s view – which is formed in all likelihood, largely (if not solely) on the basis of the judicial record – is mechanically followed by the concerned authority. Such an approach has the potential to strikes at the heart, and subvert the concept of remission as a reward and incentive encouraging actions and behaviour geared towards reformation in a modern legal system.
Relevant Para No.
- 15, 16, 25